ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2025
Palliative care and homelessness: reflections on a co-produced qualitative research study.
Article in Research involvement and engagement, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPeople experiencing homelessness often don't have access to the palliative and end-of-life care they may need. To understand how this can be improved, it is important to collaborate with people with lived experience of homelessness when carrying out research. This can add more depth and insight from experience and ultimately create better evidence to improve systems, services and experiences. Since the publication of the TIFFIN recommendations, which support co-production in the field of palliative care and homelessness research, we have implemented these within our research. The current paper describes reflections from team members on a co-produced research project exploring attitudes to death cafes among people with lived experience of homelessness. These learnings could support wider implementation of safe, meaningful co-production in this field, with implications for co-produced research in other fields. MAIN BODY: We provide a summary of how we implemented the TIFFIN recommendations in the death cafe study, and reflections and learnings from all four team members on this process and on working collaboratively. All team members kept a diary throughout the project. These diaries logged thoughts and reflections pertaining to the research process and involvement. Entries were not scheduled; team members could add to them as they felt necessary. Verbal, group reflections were also gathered at several points during the research.
conclusionsThe TIFFIN recommendations helped us co-produce a research project. Aspects which were particularly important were building rapport between team members and facilitating equitable approaches to involvement. For this project, navigating institutional attitudes and resistance was not a major issue, which may be linked to the established relationships between partner organizations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.